(Approved by the Board of Regents, December 9, 2005)

Note:  For the purposes of these guidelines, a "donation" or
"gift" on behalf of a project may include multiple non-State
fund sources.  The term "donor" may refer to an individual
or it may refer to an aggregate package of "non-budgeted
funds" (NBF) compiled by an institution for a particular

The Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland is
charged with the responsibility to determine the appropriate
priority of proposed list of capital projects requested by
the University System or any of its constituent institutions
through the establishment of a ten-year Capital Program and
a five-year Capital Budget.

The Board seeks the means to (1) recognize the generosity of
a donation to a project and (2) encourage said donations by
recommending to the Governor, through the annual Capital
Budgeting process, a change to the pre-established project
queue.  In its deliberations, the Board should consider a
number of guidelines and conditions (discussed below).

A University System institution wishing to request a change
in the Capital queue for any project should submit a request
to the Chancellor in advance of, or as part of, the regular
Capital Budget submission to the System. The Chancellor will
recommend to the Board of Regents those changes that might
be considered.

Scope of Current Policy and Practice

Under current policy and practice, the Regents have the
authority to enact changes in the capital project queue as
part of the annual Capital Budget process, though the
practice has been (and should remain) one of maintaining the
continuity of the queue as far as practicable.  Thus, these
guidelines are intended to clarify the circumstances
surrounding exceptions that might arise.

Generally, in making requests for exception, the
institutions of the University System of Maryland should
comply with the following guidelines.  (Foundation-owned or
System-Funded projects are excluded from the Board of
Regents' policy, though auxiliary projects must be approved
through the SFCP process.)

1.   Only projects previously approved by the Board should
   be considered for acceleration.  Ideally, no project should
   be moved within or added to the requested Five-Year project
   queue unless:

     a.   It has first appeared in the Ten-Year CIP as approved
        by the Board of Regents, and
     b.   A Part 1 facilities program has been submitted for
        approval to the State Department of Budget & Management, per
        their policy.

2.   The Regents may consider a request to accelerate a
   donor-assisted project within the existing Capital queue if
   one or more of the following conditions are met:

     a.   The project replaces another project priority of
        similar size from the same institution already in the queue;
     b.   Non-State funds are identified to supplement the donor
        funds to complete the total cost of the project;
     c.   Supplemental funds are requested from the State via the
        CIP (with the understanding that appropriation of
        supplemental funds by the State is not guaranteed).
Consideration of System-wide Changes in the Queue

In exceptional cases, and if institutional justification
for special consideration of a donor-funded project is
deemed sufficient, the Regents also have the authority to
shift priorities among institutions within the CIP Request
to accommodate it.

A request to change System-wide Capital priorities to
accommodate a gift to an institution associated with a
particular capital project should normally receive
consideration when the present value of the gift is an
amount equal to or greater than 30% percent of the
construction portion of the project or 25% of the total
requested appropriation for the project (including design
fees, contingencies and equipment).  Given such level of
giving, the State should be encouraged to step forward to
match the gift with the balance of funding in a timely

Regardless of the merits of the project and the size of the
gift, partial donor funding does not guarantee favorable
consideration by the Board of Regents and should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the
Board.  Likewise, it should be understood that there is no
guarantee that the Governor will support a change in the
State's CIP, though the practice has been to respect the
priorities of the Regents.